the unexplained...real stuff!

[img]http://www.ufocasebook.com/washingtondc1952small.jpg" WIDTH="175[/img]

Good Youtube link, for those who haven't seen it already:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's James Randi where he works with Johnny Carson to demonstrate how Uri Gellar is a fraud.

Also the exposure of Peter Popoff (who apparently is back defrauding people after laying low for a bit).

Actually James Randi does not expose Uri Gellar as a fraud. What he says in the video is that "this is how he could have bent spoons and the like", he does not say that that is what Gellar actually did or that he knows how Gellar did what he did.

I'd say that Randi actually uses almost as much slight as hand in 'exposing' Gellar as he claims Gellar uses. I say 'almost' because he does admit that he doesn't know if those are the methods that Gellar actually uses but he is certainly smart enough to know that is the impression that most people will be left with.

Adam, the more interesting bit is where Randi put Geller in a position where he was asked to perform some of his common tricks without the benefit of prepared props. Geller suddenly became very awkward, and started making excuses.

Funny, he asked me the same thing about you the other day.

Have they started naming [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3163_Randi]asteroids[/url] after quacks? Who knew?

Randi is not a quack but he is clearly a very angry person and he is a 'skeptic'. That is, he says 'none of these things are possible' without looking at the actual evidence presented. A genuine skeptic has an open mind on all claims presented. Of course, an open mind is not an empty head, but dismissing everything out of hand is a closed mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
[b]The point of all this being that if Uri GellEr was the only person capable of bending spoons, you could put it down to a magic trick, but when hundreds of people with no training in magic or trickery are also said to have the same ability, that does suggest to me anyway that there are mental capabilities that are not explained away by James Randi.[/b]

---

I know of hundreds of people who are able to pull rabbits out of empty top hats and real coins out of people's ears.

Coincidence? I think not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
[b]That is, he says 'none of these things are possible' without looking at the actual evidence presented.[/b]

---

You clearly know nothing about the man or his activities.

[ 11 April 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

I know that sounds like a copout, but I've also read of other cases where people have claimed to bend spoons that were clearly not prepared in advance.

---

Well, then. James Randi has a million dollars for the first person to step up and prove they can do it. If it happens that spoon-benders have no interest in material possessions, they can still donate the million to their favourite charitable cause.

Adam, it's all nonsense. ESP, mentalism, telekinesis, communication with the dead, etc. Anything labeled paranormal is fiction.

If it was real, then [i]someone, somewhere[/i] would have scientifically documented it by now. There is absolutely no reason that such a phenomenon couldn't be studied and understood, it it existed. Wouldn't every chemist, biologist, and physicist in the world want to understand a strange relationship that exists between a human brain the molecular bonds within steel? Surely there would be an opportunity to build technological innovation on the discoveries that would entail.

Sadly, they don't exist. Those practitioners rely on human biases, misperceptions, and credulity, and avoid like the plague anything like controlled experiments. When they do submit to them, they are left making excuses like "it doesn't work if someone tries to study it."

[ 11 April 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

quote:

---

I know of hundreds of people who are able to pull rabbits out of empty top hats and real coins out of people's ears.
Coincidence? I think not.

---

Yes, I said the people there were not magicians and did not have training in magic. Can you read?

quote:

---

You clearly know nothing about the man or his activities.

---

I've seen him on a number of programs, I think I know of him very well. He is an angry man who has done some very good work exposing frauds, the Peter Popoff case is probably his best work, but he goes too far lumping all claims of paranormal ability in as fakery. Again, that is not real skepticism it is cynicism and close mindendness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
[b]

I've seen him on a number of programs, I think I know of him very well. He is an angry man who has done some very good work exposing frauds, the Peter Popoff case is probably his best work, but he goes too far lumping all claims of paranormal ability in as fakery. Again, that is not real skepticism it is cynicism and close mindendness.[/b]

---

There's a reason for being closed-minded to magic.

You should read the blog column by sean carroll above.

quote:

---

Well, then. James Randi has a million dollars for the first person to step up and prove they can do it. If it happens that spoon-benders have no interest in material possessions, they can still donate the million to their favourite charitable cause.

---

James Randi's 'prize' is highly rigged. It is clearly nothing but a P.R talking point for him to be used the way you just used it.

quote:

---

If it was real, then someone, somewhere would have scientifically documented it by now. There is absolutely no reason that such a phenomenon couldn't be studied and understood, it it existed.

---

Yes, and I mentioned one expert above who did study it, Dr. Claude Swanson, who holds a P.H.D in physics. His book on the subject is called The Synchronized Universe. It details thousands of scientific studes and mentions several published journal articles.

The most famous researcher in the area of this type of research is Dr Dean Radin who has a masters in electrical engineering and a doctorate in pshychology (emphasis on research methods). He has written two books on the subject, tne better known being The Conscious Universe. It also details thousands of scientific studies and mentions several published journal articles.

To sum up the obvious response to your arguments: evidence of absense is not absense of evidence. And in reality, there actually is no absense of evidence.

[ 11 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]There is no evidence against the existence of Santa Claus.[/b]

---

In fact, you can converse with him by email, at santaclaus(at)toothfairy.com

Go ahead, it works!

It frightens me to be on the same side as Fidel on this issue and he's actually sticking to the topic.

At least M Spector is against me.

On Randi's 'prize':

quote:

---

Have you seen anyone able to really find fault in the process? It is entirely based on the scientific method.

---

1.My understanding is that Randi gets to pick the judges, or at least has a veto over the judges. It's not a surprise that a denier on this issue is going to choose other deniers and they're going to say 'nothing paranormal occured' no matter what the result.

2.Dean Radin, who discusses this prize, actually disagrees that it does follow the scientific method, and his PHD is in research methods. According to him it's a one off result, you either get it right the first time or you lose. Of course, the scientific method is based on statistical probability, not a one off test. So if Radin is correct, then this 'prize' is indeed nothing but a sham.

quote:

---

And why do you think (sic) those researchers have achieved only marginally better acceptance in the scientific community than intelligent design or global warming denial, Adam?

---

I hate to engage in conspiracy theories, but my understanding, and it's been backed up by other discussions I've had with scientists as well as reading Radin and others, is that there really is a kind of scientific cabal over this, at least in the United States. Leading scientists got the research facilities and programs at places like Stamford and other major universities shut down. You would argue that it's because there was nothing there, I would argue based on Radin and the discussions I've had, including with you!, that it's based on a prejudice against psi research, the view that these things just can't be real no matter what any evidence says. I would point out that psi researchers claim that in Europe, Russia, India and China there is much more acceptance and openess among scientists to the possibiltiy that there are realities to 'paranmormal' events. Of course, India and the far east has long believed in 'psi' with Buddhism and the like, although not verified scientifically. The mental abilities of some Buddhists monks is some of the best evidence we have that there really may be something going on. At the very least I am aware that David Suzuki devoted a Nature of Things program to the evidence presented by psi researchers and Quirks and Quarks did a report on the amazing abilities of the monks.

The obvious question here is have you read any of the research summarized in books by Radin, Swanson, Rupert Sheldrake or others or have you read any of the research papers presented by the scientists in the field. And, if you haven't, how can you say that no evidence exists? I realize there are always time constraints, but you can't say that there is nothing to it if you haven't even read the research. You would just be another example of the closed mindendness that I've mentioned several times.

On the James Randi "challenge"
Here is a web page that summarizes the criticisms of how valid the 'challenge' is:
[url=http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-doll...

quote:

---

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, either. Including this one. Conspiracy theories that must necessarily involve tens or even hundreds of thousands of people are pretty easy to dismiss.

---

Actually, that's why this 'conspiracy theory' is so much easier to believe. All it would involve is a slightly larger than a handful of university science department deans being pressured by any number of scientists.

Of course, that pretty much would kill the field. If no university will hire a physicist or engineer to teach 'paranormal' science, then there won't be much research into it at the mainstream universities, and that will, for the most part, keep it out of the mainstream journals. So, it doesn't take any large conspiracy of thousands of scientists doing whatever, it just takes a number to be actively engaged to ensure that university deans don't include anything 'paranormal' in the curriculum.

quote:

---

Consider this also: If these paranormal claims are true, then we are wrong about a lot of the things we think about the natural world. You would think that correcting such a vast set of errors would provide a huge amount of useful knowledge, and enable a very large amount of new technology.

So where is it?

---

No, it would not necessarily mean anything is wrong, per se, just incomplete. We could have the truth, but not the whole truth. As to where it is, as I said, you could consult Radin's books or Claude Swanson's book. They detail any number of published scientific studies, maybe not in the 'mainstream' journals but certainly in journals that require the scientific method.

I would assume that a scientist such as yourself would have far better access to databases of scientific studies than I have. So, the answer is, the studies are there if you care to look for them.

I'm not 100% sure how accessing 'paranormal' mental abilities would enable the development of new technologies, but maybe I just lack the imagination. Still, that could be another reason why so much of mainstream science, at least in the United States, hasn't looked into this more: there simply isn't much money to be made out of it.

[ 11 April 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

By Adam:
[b]On the James Randi "challenge"
Here is a web page that summarizes the criticisms of how valid the 'challenge' is:[/b]

---

Adam, if the position of the psi believers is that these phenomena only show up in statistical distributions after a large set of trials, then this is actually valid.

The trouble is that the challenge is intended for people like Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller. Those people don't go on TV and claim to do things that are wrong a lot of the time, but but are still better than random chance would expect.

Is spoon-bending real? A [i]single[/i] bent spoon would win the challenge. I don't see too many people going on TV and saying they need to try on average 10,000 spoons before they find one that will work.

On TV, Geller nails everything he tries, [i]every time[/i] (with the exception of the Late Show appearance, where he didn't have control of the props). He cannot use the excuse that he hasn't taken the challenge because it won't permit enough trials to get a statistically significant dataset.

Is your position that all the people who make money off of this are frauds, but that doesn't totally discredit the idea of paranormal phenomena, then that is a little more defensible. But we are still left with the questions of why this hasn't produced anything useful and why we don't have a set of repeatable experiments to confirm them for all skeptics.

quote:

---

[b]I'm not 100% sure how accessing 'paranormal' mental abilities would enable the development of new technologies, but maybe I just lack the imagination.[/b]

---

Because understanding the mechanisms by which such a thing works -- given that it contradicts so much currently accepted theory -- would have a profound effect on all of science. There is just no way that this wouldn't have immensely broad applications.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And she lists a number of reasons why people may develop fear of-phobias due to the existence of psi, which people like the not-so Amazing Randi might find just as interesting.

some people are afraid that psi might be true. For example, fear about psi arises for the following reasons:

---

My disbelief in PSI is due to the complete lack of evidence. I am not afraid of PSI being true, in fact I would love it to be true as it would open up so many more possibilities. My dislike of PSI, paranormal, most alternative medicines etc is because they are frauds which often pray on the most vulnerable people in our society. When I see the fruads committed by big companies, governments, and religious scammers it makes me angry. Same thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]

My disbelief in PSI is due to the complete lack of evidence.[/b]

---

Sorry I can't convince you. You're too tough a cookie to crumble. [url=http://www.csicop.org/]Here[/url] is the web site for you. It's rife with people who use the words "fraud", "charlatan", and similar descriptions to satiate enquiring minds.

Hyman said:

quote:

---

[b]Utts does assert that the findings from parapsychological experiments can be replicated with well-controlled experiments given adequate resources. But this is a hope or promise.[/b]

---

I gather what Hyman refuses to accept as controlled experimental results are what Utts says are satisfactory for investigations into therapeutic effects of medicinal drugs, for example. If no one can observe an immediate benefit of ingesting aspirin, or that someone doesn't develop lung cancer after smoking a cigarette, then does that mean there is no correlation between smoking and lung cancer, or between long-term use of aspirin and reduced chance of a heart attack after several years of use? [url=http://anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/response.html]Utts said:[/url]

quote:

---

[b]"Not everyone who attempts anomalous cognition will be successful, but I think we can predict the proportion of time success should be achieved."[/b]

---

by the same token, I think Hyman could have worked for tobacco companies in the 1970's-80's and done fairly well.

quote:

---

Adam, if the position of the psi believers is that these phenomena only show up in statistical distributions after a large set of trials, then this is actually valid.

The trouble is that the challenge is intended for people like Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller. Those people don't go on TV and claim to do things that are wrong a lot of the time, but but are still better than random chance would expect.

Is spoon-bending real? A single bent spoon would win the challenge. I don't see too many people going on TV and saying they need to try on average 10,000 spoons before they find one that will work.

On TV, Geller nails everything he tries, every time (with the exception of the Late Show appearance, where he didn't have control of the props). He cannot use the excuse that he hasn't taken the challenge because it won't permit enough trials to get a statistically significant dataset.

---

1.I'm glad you at least partially admit that the fact nobody has won the 'challenge' proves nothing.

2.In regards to Uri Geller and spoon bending. I don't know if that proves anything either. As that article I posted to shows, Randi or his team decide who gets to test the 'challenge' and they can refuse a challenge simply by not responding to the people asking to be tested. In the case of Geller, Randi may have said to himself "I've already proven spoon bending is a magic trick so I'm not going to allow any one who claims they can do it to be tested."

quote:

---

Is your position that all the people who make money off of this are frauds, but that doesn't totally discredit the idea of paranormal phenomena, then that is a little more defensible. But we are still left with the questions of why this hasn't produced anything useful and why we don't have a set of repeatable experiments to confirm them for all skeptics.

---

As Fidel said (sigh) psi research is still in its infancy, which is not surprising given the difficulty it has getting funding and the stigma that is placed on reputable scientists if they want to even peer review psi research. Again, the absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. The mere fact that psi research has not had huge scientifically verified 'breakthroughs' stems from a myriad of factors other than that 'it doesn't exist'.

You are basically using a circular argument:

A.psi does not exist
B.there is no need to research it
C.That it is not researched is evidence it does not exist

quote:

---

Adam wrote:
[b]1.I'm glad you at least partially admit that the fact nobody has won the 'challenge' proves nothing.[/b]

---

Actually I entirely admit that it doesn't actually prove anything with regard to paranormal phenomena in general.

It does effectively discredit self-proclaimed practitioners, though.

quote:

---

[b]2.In regards to Uri Geller and spoon bending. I don't know if that proves anything either. As that article I posted to shows, Randi or his team decide who gets to test the 'challenge' and they can refuse a challenge simply by not responding to the people asking to be tested. In the case of Geller, Randi may have said to himself "I've already proven spoon bending is a magic trick so I'm not going to allow any one who claims they can do it to be tested."[/b]

---

Think about that a little harder. If Geller proclaimed he was going to take Randi's challenge, that would be big news. If Randi then turned around and refused, especially since he's has called out Geller to take it in the past, it would discredit Randi and the challenge.

So why doesn't Geller stand up and say he will bend a spoon in a controlled trial for Randi's challenge? If Randi refuses, the challenge goes away and it would be a victory for psychics and mentalists everywhere. If Randi accepts, then Geller would prove something to do the world, and he could donate his million to paranormal research.

Or -- just maybe -- Geller can't really bend a spoon with his mind, just by 'really wanting it'.

quote:

---

[b]As Fidel said (sigh) psi research is still in its infancy, which is not surprising given the difficulty it has getting funding and the stigma that is placed on reputable scientists if they want to even peer review psi research.[/b]

---

Why would it still be in its infancy? These claims have been around for all of recorded history. And, of course, as you have shown in your links, people [i]are[/i] researching these things. Wouldn't people have been trying to prove this for centuries? The argument that there is a lack of convincing evidence because nobody has been trying to find it is very weak.

quote:

---

[b]The mere fact that psi research has not had huge scientifically verified 'breakthroughs' stems from a myriad of factors other than that 'it doesn't exist'.[/b]

---

Such as?

quote:

---

Fidel wrote:
[b]They knew that as ongoing medical studies piled up statistical evidence around the world, their unscientific claims for denying the link grew weaker.[/b]

---

Are you suggesting there are multi-billion-dollar corporations with a vested interest in upholding accepted theories of physics?

If and when a large collection of peer-reviewed studies is built supporting paranormal claims, I'll believe them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]That's right, and lots of [i]them[/i] were never interested in finding out if there was a link between industrial pollutants and cancer either. I'm not waiting for the results of those studies though. I'll choose not to live near a petrochemical refinery or plastics factory in the mean time.

And I won't smoke cigarettes in spite of the lack of big tobacco funding of cancer research over the years.[/b]

---

I think I might be starting to understand. So you're saying we have things like, say, the aerospace industry, which has a vested interest in classical mechanics being more or less accurate. So they're covering up the studies that say airplanes don't really fly, or possibly they only fly because the pilots [i]will[/i] them to, via telekinesis. They constantly live under the threat that someone will leak out the information that we completely missed the mark on aerodynamics, and the share prices of Boeing and Airbus will plummet.

Am I getting warm?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Someone in the American CIA admitted that Pat Price drew an accurate picture depicting the Soviet's latest submarine project somewhere in Northern Russia during the cold war. They were able to verify Price's information by satellite imagery. The military prefers 100% correct information, but I think they have accepted that psi produces anomalous but significant results both here and by specialists living in other countries and possibly working for unfriendly governments. It brought new meaning to the word CIA "spook" for sure.

---

Yeah and they also used his information and sketches to pinpoint those giant alien military bases under the ground.....

[ 13 April 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]

Yeah and they also used his information and sketches to pinpoint those giant alien military bases under the ground.....

[ 13 April 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ][/b]

---

Have you ever wondered how the U.S. Dafense Dept and shadow gov could lose track of trillions of dollars? They were never afraid of "Soviet aggression" or any other country's military. They've been a bunch of paranoid megalomaniacs for a long time running.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Have you ever wondered how the U.S. Dafense Dept and shadow gov could lose track of trillions of dollars?

---

Incompetence, fraud and corruption.

quote:

---

They were never afraid of "Soviet aggression" or any other country's military. They've been a bunch of paranoid megalomaniacs for a long time running.

---

Sure they were paranoid - that is why they were willing to spend boat loads of money chasing silly theories and giving lunatic frauds the benefit of the doubt. I am not paranoid so I will await evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't support these theories being testing. I do. (Using Richard Dawkins scale of 1 to 7 on belief vs atheism for psi/remote viewing I would give myself a 6 or 6.5) However, I don't blame real scientists for not wanted to waste their valuable time on it and I hold no illusions that test after test showing that these things don't work and that people like Geller are fraud artists will change anyone's mind. It won't, just as the branch of the US government (forget it name at the moment) that spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year putting alternative medicines through proper scientific tests to see if any of them work (and so far a dozen years have found nothing to back up the claims of most of the field) is not going to change anyone's mind. Each year more money is spent on homeopathy even though each year more evidence shows that it doesn't have any effect.

[ 13 April 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]